Judgment:
1. The appeal is against the order-in-appeal passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the assessment order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Unit in terms of which the latter had fixed the value of a Toyota Corolla Sedan CE 13001982 Model car imported by the appellant as 8,27,000 Japanese yen as against 1,43,101 Saudi Ryals declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry filed by him for its clearance. In the process the assessable value suffered an increase from Rs. 1,64,700/- to Rs. 2,23,080/- for the car. In addition the car air conditioner was valued at Rs. 29,130/-.
2. A letter has been received from Shri H.S. Mew, learned Counsel for the appellant requesting that the appeal may be decided on merits. It has been submitted that the method adopted for arriving at the value of the car on the basis of domestic price of a new car is not correct. The judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 551 has been cited in support. It is then stated that the genuineness of the invoice has not been challenged by the Custom House and the value has been enhanced on the basis of the domestic price of a similar model shown in the letter of Toyota Liaison Office. This is not justified.
The Custom House decision for reassessment of the car on the above basis after initial assessment on the basis of dealer's price on the ground that it is safer to err on higher side is illegal.
3. Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR stated that the order-in-appeal has considered all the points urged by the appellant which only have been reiterated in the present appeal. The car has been valued on correct basis, he concluded pleading for the dismissal of the appeal.
4. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the record which includes photocopy of the Custom House file leading to the enhancement of value. The car in question is a second hand one purchased by the appellant in Saudi Arabia from an individual, the original owner; the price indicated is 14,700 Saudi Riyals. Appellant produced on direction from the Custom House a certificate issued by M/s. Salem Saheb Babgi Trading Establishment indicated as Toyota Authorised Dealer showing the ex-factory price of Toyota Corolla 1300 Sedan, 1992 Model Air-conditioned as 6,55,000 Japanese Yen equal to 23,312 Saudi Riyals.
This was considered along with the certificate of the Saudi dealer, which was produced by the appellant. Initially the departmental officers accepted the price shown by Saudi dealer of Toyota Cars. This was, however, reconsidered adopting the ex-factory price of Toyota Corolla 1300 CC DX Grade car certified by Toyota Motor Corporation, New Delhi with Headquarters in Toyota, Japan which was shown as 8,27,000 Japanese Yen. It was stated that this model was most similar to Toyota Corolla... car bearing Engine No. 2E24453502 and Chassis Number EE 90-0445666. We find that these numbers related to the imported car as the same numbers are shown in the Bill of Entry also. The appellant has raised the plea that the assessment as per dealer's price and the subsequent reassessment on Toyota Liaison Office letter on the basis that it is safer to err on higher side is illegal. On going through the case records of the Custom House made available in the appeal papers, we find that for the said reassessment there was a proposal stating that the practice of Air Cargo Unit was to assess cars based on the certification given by Toyota Liaison Office in Delhi. The request for assessment as per the value stated by the authorised dealer of Toyota in Saudi Arabia was also referred to. It was then stated in the note that cars are normally assessed in best judgment, method and that it safer to err on the higher side. Thereafter the noting is that, as per practice, reassessment was directed to be done based on the certification given by Toyota Liaison Office in Delhi. Hence there was a practice to go by the price certified by the Toyota Office in Delhi.
The remarks about erring on the higher side are there in the reconsideration proposal by a subordinate officer. The decision is, however, based upon the price certified by the Delhi Office of the Toyota Motor Company. We have to see whether that was a proper basis.
The order does not surfer from any infirmity on the ground that a recommendation was made in the Custom House file that it is safer to err on the higher side. The Collector (Appeals) has considered the submissions made in the appeal questioning the certificate issued by the New Delhi office of Toyota Motor Corporation. The objections are inter alia that the date of the certificate, the year of manufacture of the car for which the price has been given and the ex-factory price.
The Collector (Appeals) has rejected the objections raised regarding the certificate observing that as the said certificate had been obtained personally by the Customs authorities. There was no reason to question the same on the ground raised by the appellant. That the certificate was obtained by the authorities from Toyota Motor Corporation Office may be known to the department but that is no reason why it should not be complete. Collector (Appeals) has, however, stated that the matter was again checked with the Delhi Liaison Office of Toyota Motor Corporation who again certified on 5-9-1994 that the domestic price in Japan for Toyota Corolla 13CC 1992 Model car, exclusive of air conditioner was Japanese Yen 8,27,000 as intimated by them earlier. This confirmation being dated 5-9-1994 had been received only a few days before the date of the order-in-appeal. This is the only indication that their earlier certificate was regarding a 1992 Model and the price indicated earlier was confirmed to be the domestic price in Japan for Toyota Corolla 1300 CC car, 1992 Model. As against the price of 8,27,000 Yens certified by the Delhi Office of the manufacturer, the certificate produced by the appellant which has been issued by the dealer Salem Saheb Babgi Trading Est. at Bays, Saudi Arabia shows the ex-factory price of the Toyota Corolla 1992 Sedan Model EE 90 AEMRSA as 6,55,000. The difference between this price and the one certified by the Delhi Liaison Officer of Toyota is thus 1,72,000 Japanese Yen. The two apparent reasons for the difference between the two certificates are that the Saudi dealer has given the ex-factory price while the Delhi Office shows the domestic price. The other is that the dealer's certificate refers to the Model as EE 90 AEMRSA; while the Toyota Delhi certificate refers to DX Grade Car of Toyota Corolla 1300 CC but it is stated that that model was most similar to the Toyota Corolla car having the engine number and chassis number. The imported car in question had these numbers. It is not clear whether the difference in prices was only due to the fact that the dealer's certificate was the domestic price. This has not been adverted to and decided by the Additional Collector. However, we agree with the finding that the certificate of Delhi Office of Toyota Motor Corporation is to be preferred to the dealer's certificate produced by the appellant. We also agree that the sale price of 14,700 Saudi Ryals is not acceptable. As, however, the assessable value of the car cannot be based on the domestic price in Japan, suitable adjustment for arriving at the export price thereof has to be made. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remand to the adjudicating authority for de novo determination of the assessable value of the car.